![]() ![]() It is clear that FSPs must carefully assess every instruction for authenticity and strictly comply with any agreed conditions. Everyone must be vigilant to the possibility of hackers emulating clients for financial gain. This decision is a warning signal to FSPs whose clients may be targeted by hackers and social engineers. The FSP therefore acted without receiving proper instructions and contrary to its mandate. On 18 March 2020 the Supreme Court of Appeal found that funds were improperly transferred by a financial services provider (FSP) when it received fraudulent instructions from a hacker posing as its client because there was no signature on the instruction as required by the mandate. ![]() By Rosalind Lake (ZA) and Priyanka Naidoo on MaPosted in General
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |